Today, Judge Marilyn Litzenberger dismissed Providence patients' privacy claims for harms and losses resulting from the theft of computerized patient records. The case affects 350,000 patients. The motion to dismiss had been under consideration for a year. For the curious, the case is Gibson v. Providence Health System-Oregon, State of Oregon, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 0601-01059.
Judge Litzenberger ruled that Oregon law did not provide a claim for Oregon patients affected by the loss. Paul & Sugerman represents the Providence patients.
At an early conference Judge Litzenberger had indicated that she was inclined to grant the motion to dismiss. She issued the decision on November 7, 2007.
When Providence first announced the security breach, it told its patients that they should take steps to protect themselves. Many patients went out and purchased identity theft protection service. Several weeks after the patients filed the lawsuit, Providence announced that it would make identity theft protection available. It eventually extended the theft protection for a second year.
It is fair to say that those of us who represent patients disagree with the judge's ruling. After all, when you go to the doctor you expect that your private health history and confidential identity information will be protected. This didn't happen.
The legal team is studying the opinion and considering its options. But for the present, it is a sad day for patients' rights.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Not Really News: Wall Street Journal Slams Trial Lawyers
The editorial in the Wall Street Journal starts like this: “We're old enough to remember when Naderite groups like Public Citizen were embarrassed by their ties to trial lawyers.” (Nov. 7, 2007, A-22). And then it goes downhill from there.
The Journal criticizes Public Citizen for its ties to trial lawyers and attempts to suggest that the stalwarts at National Association of Consumer Advocates are somehow fat-cats who are singly responsible for the demise of the American economy. It’s a screed that misses several points. Most notably this: Corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation brought us Enron and the rash of inflated stock value scams.
The same big three--corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation--are back for another round. This time it’s the burgeoning mortgage lending crisis. Against this backdrop, the Journal tosses out desperate charges that trial lawyers are responsible for economic meltdown. That’s very sad, as Enron didn’t hire any consumer lawyers to cook the books. Neither did the accounting firms. And the FTC and other regulatory agencies don’t seem to consult with trial lawyers, either. The growing mortgage crisis appears to be another sad case. Some lenders may have engaged in scams that involved wide-spread inflation of real estate values, so that consumers got bigger and more profitable mortgages.
The reality is that trial lawyers provide the main method of smoothing the kinks out of an economy. Open courts and the jury trial system provide the means through which ordinary consumers can call wrongdoers to account. It is the place where bad behavior faces scrutiny and the means through which greed gets checked. In that respect, the process actually protects the economy. Without the means to call wrongdoers to account, consumers would be left with very few options.
My schedule didn’t allow me to attend this year’s conference of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. So sad because it’s always nice to show up for consumers.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The Journal criticizes Public Citizen for its ties to trial lawyers and attempts to suggest that the stalwarts at National Association of Consumer Advocates are somehow fat-cats who are singly responsible for the demise of the American economy. It’s a screed that misses several points. Most notably this: Corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation brought us Enron and the rash of inflated stock value scams.
The same big three--corporate greed, accounting abuses and lax regulation--are back for another round. This time it’s the burgeoning mortgage lending crisis. Against this backdrop, the Journal tosses out desperate charges that trial lawyers are responsible for economic meltdown. That’s very sad, as Enron didn’t hire any consumer lawyers to cook the books. Neither did the accounting firms. And the FTC and other regulatory agencies don’t seem to consult with trial lawyers, either. The growing mortgage crisis appears to be another sad case. Some lenders may have engaged in scams that involved wide-spread inflation of real estate values, so that consumers got bigger and more profitable mortgages.
The reality is that trial lawyers provide the main method of smoothing the kinks out of an economy. Open courts and the jury trial system provide the means through which ordinary consumers can call wrongdoers to account. It is the place where bad behavior faces scrutiny and the means through which greed gets checked. In that respect, the process actually protects the economy. Without the means to call wrongdoers to account, consumers would be left with very few options.
My schedule didn’t allow me to attend this year’s conference of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. So sad because it’s always nice to show up for consumers.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Oregon's New Identity Theft Law
The Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act, Oregon 2007 Laws, Chapter 759, §§1-18, now provides greater protection to Oregon consumers. Before passage of the 2007 Act, Oregon businesses were not required to notify consumers when someone without authorization accessed the personal information. The legislation passed in the wake of Providence Health System’s loss of computerized patient records on more than 300,000 patients. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represent consumers affected by the Providence data loss.
Under the Act, Oregon businesses must take steps to protect consumers’ personal information. While there is leeway for small businesses, the Act provides that businesses employing more than 50 people must take significant steps to protect consumer information. Oregon businesses have to be especially careful about not publishing or otherwise disclosing social security numbers, except when they are otherwise required by state or federal law.
The new law provides that when a business suffers a security breach affecting consumers’ personal information, the business must take certain steps to notify various entities. While the details may vary, businesses generally must notify law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies.
Best of all, Section 4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their consumer reports by sending a written request to consumer reporting agencies. You may be charged a fee for this service, and proper identification will be required, as well.
It’s not the best statute. Violations are enforced by State, and whether they will be enforced at all depends on government officials. But it’s better than what we have, and it at least provides some important protections for consumers, as long as the State makes it real through necessary enforcement.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Under the Act, Oregon businesses must take steps to protect consumers’ personal information. While there is leeway for small businesses, the Act provides that businesses employing more than 50 people must take significant steps to protect consumer information. Oregon businesses have to be especially careful about not publishing or otherwise disclosing social security numbers, except when they are otherwise required by state or federal law.
The new law provides that when a business suffers a security breach affecting consumers’ personal information, the business must take certain steps to notify various entities. While the details may vary, businesses generally must notify law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies.
Best of all, Section 4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their consumer reports by sending a written request to consumer reporting agencies. You may be charged a fee for this service, and proper identification will be required, as well.
It’s not the best statute. Violations are enforced by State, and whether they will be enforced at all depends on government officials. But it’s better than what we have, and it at least provides some important protections for consumers, as long as the State makes it real through necessary enforcement.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Consumer Products Safety Commission Fails Consumers
It’s like the we’re living a Groundhog Day existence. Today’s news—November 6, 2007—brings us yet another Mattel recall of over a hundred thousand dangerous toys. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Nancy Nord, has been accused of a range of abuses while serving as the head of the agency that protects children from dangerous toys.
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Ms. Nord actually opposed Congressional efforts to add funding to CPSC. She now says that she wasn’t really opposed to additional funding. Instead, she opposed the bill that would strengthen protections for agency whistleblowers and that would make it easier to publicize dangerous products. Here is the link to a media report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21653084/
Her explanation of why she opposes funding is awful. A whistleblower is someone inside who complains to outside authorities, when an agency fails to properly do its work. It seems that Ms. Nord is opposed to protecting those employees who would speak out when people in her position fail to protect our children. And the opposition to publicizing unsafe products is even worse. If a product is unsafe, those of us with children would want to know. After all, we’re supposed to take responsibility for protecting our children. But if secrecy rules keep information from consumers, how can we do that.
Ms. Nord was an unfortunate political appointment to the head of the CPSC. And for this, it appears that we will relive Groundhog Day because CPSC has failed to protect our children. She would do all of us a favor by either taking seriously her mission or—better—resigning to let someone take over the job who puts consumers first.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, November 5, 2007
Mattel Toy Lead Problem: No Surprise
Media reports from the last few months provide rich coverage of the near-daily revelations about lead paint in kids toys. The problem is one of lax oversight. In the waning years of the last century, politicians and various experts convinced American consumers that regulation was bad and deregulation was good. Maybe it’s a little too simple to say, “All regulation bad; all deregulation good.” Case in point: the toy problem.
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The dangers of lead paint have been well-known to the medical community and public health officials for decades. Ingested lead is particularly dangerous to children, who can take it in and store it in their bodies. Lead is a toxin that causes injury to the brain and nervous system. It’s bad stuff, and we’ve known it for years.
Consumer safety advocates have focused on childhood lead paint poisoning arising from lead exposure in homes and schools. In the late-1990s, for example, our law firm handled a lead paint exposure case for a young child injured by exposure.
The point is that manufacturers and government agencies have known for years that lead is dangerous to children. But no one checked the Mattel toys.
Our public health system is set up in such a way that there is little if any advance inspection. As consumers, we assume that manufacturers test their products for safety. Many do, but not all. So the way we learn about a problem is from health reports or product failure reports that wend their way to the proper government agency.
In the case of kids’ toys, that agency is the Consumer Products Safety Commission, or CPSC. The agency has a mixed record to be sure. In the past it has taken action-—albeit slow, late and limited—-in the face of dangerous products. The All-Terrain Vehicle deaths and injuries in the 1980s provide a good case study. Eventually, the CPSC did something, though it took a long time, and its action was less than complete.
But these days, the CPSC’s budget has been slashed. As a result, it lacks the resources to provide surveillance necessary to catch emerging problems like lead-paint covered toys. There is more than a little irony here, as news reports in late October 2007 noted that the appointed head of the CPSC opposed increases in the agency’s budget. Someone should really explain to consumers why the head of CPSC opposes additional funding for product safety.
Maybe that would be a good thing if the agency was operating lean. But when it comes to kid safety, no one wants to see a child get hurt. And lax regulation that allows dangerous toys into our homes is unacceptable. All that is left—unfortunately—is the frustrating tool of a lawsuit to provide lifetime compensation to cover an injured child’s harms and losses. Why would anyone choose a lawsuit over prevention?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
